Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Where Damages Award Was Based On A Sole Contract, Lack Of Fees Clause In The Contract Showed No Fee Entitlement

Cases: Section 1717

$40,230 Fee Award Was Stricken.                   Defendants/cross-complainants defeated plaintiffs’ complaint and obtained cross-complaint damages based on a 2018 construction contract with no attorney’s fees clause, even though the trial judge awarded them $40,230 in fees.  The appellate court in 9 Star Construction v. Dimapasok, Case No. E080273 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. […]

Landlord/Tenant, Mediation, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Most Of $363,696.70 Contractual Fee Award Affirmed In Landlord/Tenant Dispute

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Mediation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

However, N.Y. Attorneys’ Time After California Counsel Retained Must Be Stricken Because He Was Not Licensed In California.                In Thaunhaeuser v. TKH Zum, LLC, Case No. B321283 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 11, 2024) (unpublished), the lower court entered a $114,000 compensatory judgment against landlord and in favor of tenant under a property condition/security

Section 1717: Defendant Obtaining Reversal Of Interference Claim Because It Was Based Entirely On Contract Was Properly Awarded Section 1717 Fees

Cases: Section 1717

After The Successful Appeal, Defendant Awarded $604,700 In Fees.                In the Civil Code section 1717 area, only contract-based claims are allowable for recovery purposes, with tort claims usually not qualifying.  However, that “usually” caveat has an important section:  where a tort is based on a duty created solely by a contract, enforcement of that

Section 1717: Individual Suing As A “DBA” Or Suing On Behalf Of A Corporate Entity Property Saddled With Attorney’s Fee For Losing A Suit With Contractual Fee Exposure

Cases: Section 1717

Nonsignatories Stepping Into the Shoes Of Contractual Signatories Can Be Liable For Fees.                In Del Rio v. Weis, Case No. A167335 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 17, 2024) (unpublished), Mr. Del Rio sued Homeowners for breach of a home remodel construction contract between Mr. Del Rio’s business, JODT, and Homeowners.  Homeowners won and were

Section 1717, Section 998: Because Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Its Unlawful Detainer Action Without Prejudice, Santisas Prevented Recovery Of Contractual Attorney’s Fees By The Other Side Despite The Winning 998 Offer

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

However, Plaintiff Did Pay The Other Side $118,372.65 In Routine Costs.                In Riverside Mining Limited v. Quality Aggregates, Case No. E081228 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 19, 2024) (published), Quality leased 73 acres from Riverside Mining, operating a quarry on the land.  Quality brought a civil lawsuit against Riverside Mining for infringing its leasehold,

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Defendants Winning A Demurrer Dismissal Without Leave Was Contractually Prevailing Party Under Section 1717

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Conspiracy And Unjust Enrichment Claims Fell Within An Operating Agreement Contractual Dispute Ambit.                Many contractual fee disputes depend on whether the claims were “on the contract” under Civil Code section 1717; and if so, who prevailed.  In Zhou v. Hotel Winters, LLC, Case No. C099278 (3d Dist. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished), defendants won a

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Prevailing Defendant’s Dismissal Of Cross-Complaint After Winning Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Santisas Rule Applied, With Dismissed Cross-Complaint Only Raising Contractual Claims.                In Colaco v. Marcum LLP, Case No. B326252 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 30, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff sued his accounting firm for misrepresentation after losing money in some investments, with the defendant obtaining summary judgment and then voluntarily dismissing a cross-complaint containing indemnity and

Fee Clause Interpretation, Judgment Enforcement, Section 1717: $70,635 Attorney’s Fees Award Favorable To Nonsignatory To A Contract, Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Nonsignatory Did Not Seek To Enforce The Contract, With No Judgment Enforcement Fees Available To The Nonsignatory.                Crooymans v. Foumberg, Case No. B325110 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 18, 2024) (unpublished) is a stark reminder that a nonsignatory to a contract, more often than not, does not face fee exposure under

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Intervening Insurer Not Responsible For Fees To Prevailing Party, While Litigant Losing Alter Ego Arguments Was Responsible For Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Also Did Not Err By Awarding Insurer Rate Fees To A Prevailing Party, Apportioning Out Noncompensable Fees.                Yee v. Weinberg, Case No. A163850 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 5, 2024) (unpublished) is a situation where a plaintiff landlord prevailed against defendant tenant, with landlord receiving some fees (but none against

Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Lower Court’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Plaintiffs In CC&R Flag Pole Placement Dispute Was An Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Judicial Estoppel Applied And Plaintiffs Were The Unqualified Winners.                In Rowan v. Hilliard, Case No. D081687 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 29, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed against defendants/cross-complainants in a flag pole placement dispute under CC&Rs, which had a fees clause giving the lower court the authority (“shall have the authority”) to award reasonable

Scroll to Top